The procedure for service in a foreign country set forth in this rule cannot be followed if it would conflict with the provisions of a treaty between the foreign country and the United States of America. For example, where mail service of process was rejected as a means of service in the Federal Republic of Germany pursuant to the Hague Convention, the provisions for such service contained in Rule 4.4 were overridden. See Rivers v. Stihl, 434 So.2d 766 (Ala.1983). Rule 4.4(b) has been amended to acknowledge the prospect for service in a manner inconsistent with Rule 4.4 where a treaty so requires.

Rule 4.4 as amended is taken almost verbatim from Rule 4(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., as amended effective December 1, 1993. It was not the intent by amending Rule 4.4 to alter the substance of former Rule 4.4 as to how service is perfected in foreign countries; the Committee thought the current Federal Rule was more clear, succinct, and up-to-date.

Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Rules 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 6(a), 7(b)(2), 17(a), 22(c), and 26(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, effective August 1, 2004, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from 867 So.2d.